Jump to content


Photo

given a choice between 35mm OR 16mm with DI?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 29 January 2009 - 03:08 PM

hi all
just finished a film on super 35 with DI.....scheduled for release in april...
planning my next feature film. the script requires a rustic look...which ofcourse can be created in various ways.
wat would be ur idea on..to go with 35mm or....shoot it on 16mm and DI the same.....ofcourse no budget for 35mm and DI!
would shooting on 16mm and DI the same....will it save any money...or more orelse hit the same cost as 35mm.....which one would
anyone suggest......
if the cost is the same....is it a gamble to go the 16mm - DI way?
this will be for theatrical projection on scope ...finally
thanks!
rajavel
  • 0

#2 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 29 January 2009 - 03:48 PM

CinemaScope is nothing for no budget. But what do you mean by rustic?
  • 0

#3 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:16 PM

CinemaScope is nothing for no budget. But what do you mean by rustic?

well rustic.....rural..village subject....
budget!? in comparison to with or without DI.......DI is still expensive!
  • 0

#4 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 31 January 2009 - 09:30 AM

hi all
just finished a film on super 35 with DI.....scheduled for release in april...
planning my next feature film. the script requires a rustic look...which ofcourse can be created in various ways.
wat would be ur idea on..to go with 35mm or....shoot it on 16mm and DI the same.....ofcourse no budget for 35mm and DI!
would shooting on 16mm and DI the same....will it save any money...or more orelse hit the same cost as 35mm.....which one would
anyone suggest......
if the cost is the same....is it a gamble to go the 16mm - DI way?
this will be for theatrical projection on scope ...finally
thanks!
rajavel




shooting 35 with a photochemical finish may be the cheapest. Super 16 > HDCAM SR 4:4:4 > film, may be an option also as it can be affordable. But the scanning and film out really does add up. Why do you want to do a DI?
  • 0

#5 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 January 2009 - 09:46 AM

Shooting 35mm is a much more straightforward process. Also, 35mm will let you work at faster film speeds, so you might get away with smaller lights, and thus smaller generators. (Though I work on plenty of 35mm shows where everything is as big as possible.) On the other hand, super-16mm is easier on your camera department as far as handling/ storing the gear, and holding focus. It's quicker and nimbler. If you're not worried about underexposing, you could shoot super-16, but then you have to worry about how the DI or the blow-up to 35mm is going to affect the look of the film. Also, you're liable to burn hours and hours splitting hairs with the producers about the endless workflow possibilities. That alone is reason to stick with 35mm.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

CineTape

Visual Products

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineTape

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport